Why Motivation Theory Is Absolutely Crucial to Educators

Part 1: Schools Find It Difficult to Change Without Compelling Reasons (and Even With Compelling Reasons)

This is Part 1 of a Series. Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

The Default Always Wins

Understanding Self Determination Theory(SDT), the branch of psychology that researches intrinsic motivation, is crucial for school change. Many educators do not recognize that educational carrot-and-stick motivational structures are outdated and demotivating, so movement forward with cannot not occur. Educators’ default mode of operating means implementing any new change initiative to “amend” to the current system. SDT is necessary to justify wholesale change, not just tweaks.

When discussing the need for change in schools, educators can get in a rut of justifying current practice even when it does not deserve to be defended. That perpetuates status quo with little or no justification because it is the default. I remember one school where we looked articles pointing out the problems of traditional grading. One teacher approached me afterwards to ask, “What research definitively shows we should never use averaging and letter grades?” My first snarky inclination (but I held my tongue) was to retort, “What definitive research shows we SHOULD use averaging and letter grades?” We don’t seek definitive research to continue current, outdated practice.

It is not that questioning is wrong—just the opposite, we should question and examine all proposed changes. The problem is that some educators do not use these questions to discern the best instructional path, rather they use these questions more like an axe to the side of the ship to prevent launch.

For example, SDT explains that autonomy is one of the key ingredients to intrinsic motivation. For the skeptical educator, it is easy go up the inference ladder and decide that more autonomy must always be better, so ultimately we must reach the point where students decide everything about what they learn, phase out the teacher, and then anarchy will reign. Of course, no one proposes this—learners without autonomy restraints will flounder. This kind of take-it-to-an-extreme thinking should not freeze any school moving forward with determining the right type and amount of autonomy to help learners progress.

This hesitation for change is often justified because unfortunately education in the past has embraced too many ideas because “intuition” tells us it will be good. One of the more cited examples is the learning styles movement. The problem is the backlash against new ideas often enables those who resist any positive change by convincing everyone to wait for 100% proof of viability. This forces everyone to stick with a traditional system that has little viability other than it is widely practiced, almost always less viability than the proposed initiative.

Another reason for scrutiny: K-12 Education has a bad habit of whiplashing to the “next new thing” without fully bringing completion to the last new thing. I have had teachers tell me they will sit out trying new initiatives as they believe they have more patience than the school leaders proposing it and can wait for them to eventually move on to something new. Passive resistance for any change unfortunately gets reinforced.

What Change is Worthy?

So how do educators discern worthy initiatives? Success or failure of other schools implementing a new initiative is not necessarily a good measure of viability. We have all witnessed new programs fail because of issues having nothing to do with the program itself.
Certainly the educational standing of the people or organizations promoting a program may have some importance. But we must remember everyone has their own agenda in promoting new initiatives, many not necessarily for the right reason. Also, strength of educational standing in one area does not necessarily mean strength in all areas, e.g. someone with expertise in instructional research may not be strong in professional development skills and systemic change processes.

Educators trying to decipher whether to embrace new proposed initiatives should turn to research as one important aspect of its viability. But it is how we use that research that can either lead to successful or problematic outcomes. People tend to want all-or-nothing simplicity. One easy approach is to focus only on the research with the highest effect size and ignore the rest. This won’t succeed because education is a complex weaving of systemic structures, instructional practices, community values, and teacher-student relationships. We need to consider the interactivity of all these areas of education when using research as a guide for new programs. We have to embrace complexity without letting it overwhelm us.
All of this leads to this critical point: moving forward for a new initiative for its own sake usually will not succeed. You also have to make a case why the traditional practice is deficient. Current thinking on motivation becomes critical for this discussion, it provides backing that many traditional practices and structures truly are outdated. Without this background, teachers find little reason to put in the effort toward change. We need to be challenged that many status quo systems are actually harmful to student motivation. If educators view proposed change in instruction as just “another option” to our practice, we only get small tweaks to the current system.

This is Part 1 of a Series. Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Resources

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2022). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. United Kingdom: Guilford Publications.